slaughtering even of a Gentile, who is not on idolater, is carrion.”
(Ibid., c. iv. 11, 12.) It is hardly necessary to say, that the above
quotation from the oral law is now-a-days altogether out of place. Moses
was not speaking of Christians nor of the inhabitants of these
countries, but of the nations of Canaan. He had been declaring the words
of the Lord, “Behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the
Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite.” And
then adds, “Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the
inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do
sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his
sacrifice.” (Exod. xxxiv. 11-15.) So then, according to the oral law,
because Moses forbade the Israelites to partake of the idolatrous
sacrifices of the Hivites and the Jebusites, a poor famished creature
here in London is not to touch Christian meat, nor to partake of
Christian bounty. A more cruel or oppressive law could hardly have been
devised. It is all very well for the rich, but it is very little short
of murder to the poor. It binds their consciences with fetters of iron,
so that even when relief is offered, many turn from good and wholesome
food sent to them by a kind Providence; and if a spark of light has
visited the mind of some victim of poverty, and he thinks it lawful to
bring home the Christian bounty to save the lives of his starving
children, fear prevents him. Perhaps his wife is still enveloped in all
the darkness of superstition, and would spurn the proffered relief as an
unclean thing, or perhaps his children might innocently betray him, and
draw down all the weight of rabbinic indignation. A grosser insult has
rarely been offered to the Majesty of heaven, than to call good and
proper food, the work of his hands, carrion. A mistake in the
slaughtering, an ignorance of the rabbinic art, a Gentile hand, is to be
sufficient to turn the bounty of Almighty God into an unclean thing, and
to deprive the poor of their daily food. How can the Jews expect God’s
blessing so long as this state of things continues—how can they be
surprised if poverty and want, and wretchedness and scorn, tread close
upon their heels, when they themselves spurn God’s bounty from them with
disdain? As nations deal with God and his word, so he deals with them,
מדה כמדה, measure for measure; and therefore, so long as the oral law
teaches them to scorn his bounty, and to deprive the poor of their
food—so long as the cries of the poor ascend and enter into the ears of
the Lord of Hosts, so long must they expect to feel the rod of his
indignation. The times of ignorance and superstition God winked at; but
those times have passed away. Good or bad, there is a stir in the
world—there is a shaking of all old opinions, true and false; and from
its effects the Jews have not escaped. There are many who, for
themselves and their families, have renounced Rabbinism—who eat Gentile
food, and know that in doing so they commit no sin. These are the
persons who are most guilty in looking upon the misery of their poor
brethren without pity or concern and without an effort to deliver them.
The rabbinic zealot who would persecute his brother for eating meat not
slaughtered according to rabbinic precept is in comparison innocent. He
conscientiously thinks that he is doing right; but for the man, who
himself openly transgresses the oral law, and yet sees the faces of his
brethren ground by that system, without a sentiment of pity, there is no
excuse. If he had the common feelings of humanity, he would rise up,
fearless of all consequences, and cry out with all his might against
those principles which have been and are the curse of his nation. He
would stand forth as the advocate and defender of the poor—yea, and he
would have God’s blessing. But so long as this class of anti-rabbinic
Jews remain silent, whether from fear or from interest, or from
indifference, let them not boast of their superior light. Let them not
look with self-complacency on the poor victims of superstition. They are
themselves less respectable and more guilty. They are conniving at what
they know to be falsehood. They are with their eyes open consenting to
oppression and starvation. They are, by their silence, helping to
strengthen and confirm a system of anti-social intolerance, which has
been the source of all the calamities which their nation has endured for
eighteen centuries. What can be more pernicious than to teach the
ignorant that the food which their neighbours eat is carrion, so unfit
for the nourishment of a Rabbinist that he ought to die, and suffer his
family to die of want, rather than eat it? Is it likely to produce
kindly feeling on either side, considering that the mass of mankind is
not actuated by the dictates of reason or the precepts of the Bible? On
the one side it is likely to produce proud contempt, and on the other a
spirit of retaliation. Every Jew that wishes well to his nation, and
knows that these rabbinic principles are false, is bound to protest
against them. He ought not to be a poor selfish thing, insensible to the
wants and the sufferings of others, but should do what in him lies, to
assert what he knows to be the truth. And is it necessary to remind such
of the misery which these rabbinic principles are still working in every
part of the world? Here in London the poor are suffering. In the various
towns of England many Jews are suffering. In some places a single Jewish
family is found, generally poor, and the father ignorant of the rabbinic
art of slaughtering: such persons are compelled to abstain altogether
from animal food, or to do violence to their conscience. The poor Jews
who go out to the colonies to seek employment are in the same case, and
are precluded from taking such situations as require them to partake of
the food of their employers. Even if they can buy an animal, they are
not allowed to kill it for themselves:—
ישראל שאינו יודע חמשה דברים שמפסידין את השחיטה וכיוצא בהן מהלכות שחיטה
שביארנו ושחט בינו לבין עצמו אסור לאכול משחיטתו לא הוא ולא אחרים , והרי
זו קרובה לספק נבלה והאוכל ממנה כזית מכין אותו מכת מרדות ׃
“If an Israelite does not know the five things which invalidate the act
of slaughtering, as we have explained, and slaughters by himself, it is
unlawful to eat of his slaughtering, both for himself and others; for
this case is much the same as that of doubtful carrion, and he that eats
of it a quantity equal to an olive, is to be flogged with the flogging
of rebellion.” (Ibid., c. iv.) Such is the mercy of the oral law, and
such its justice. It punishes the eating of what God has allowed, with
the same severity that it would visit a great crime. It makes no
provision for those numerous cases of distress which we have mentioned.
Whether one of its disciples has or has not food, it never considers.
Without reflection and without mercy it sentences every one, who eats
meat not rabbinically slaughtered, to be flogged. But, besides the
cruelty, what is the effect upon the minds of its votaries? It teaches
them that to transgress this mere human observance is a sin of the
deepest die, more dreadful far than many which God has forgiven. A
Rabbinist would be more grieved to hear that his son had transgressed
the law of slaughtering, than to find that he had been guilty of
falsehood. Its tendency is directly to draw off the mind from the
weightier matters of the law, judgment, justice, and mercy, and to
flatter the ill-informed that they are good Jews, if only they abstain
from meat not slaughtered according to rabbinic art.
Let not any Jew imagine that we wish him lightly to transgress the law
of Moses, or to eat of food which the law of God has forbidden. We now
speak of that which Moses has allowed. If a Jew would see meat offered
to idols, or be invited to partake of an idolatrous feast, let him
abstain—let him refuse, and protest as strongly as he will and can
against the sinfulness of such conduct. But where does Moses forbid the
poor to partake of meat slaughtered by a Gentile worshipper of the true
God, or by an Israelite who has not learned the rabbinic art? Certainly
not in that passage to which the oral law refers. Moses gives a general
permission to every Israelite, without exception, to kill and eat.
“Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates,
whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the Lord
thy God which he hath given thee.” (Deut. xii. 15.) He makes no mention
of any mysteries, connected with the art of slaughtering, the ignorance
of which would disqualify. Why then should a Jew be prevented from doing
what Moses has allowed—why should he be flogged with the flogging of
rebellion, or avow that that mode and measure of punishment is
impracticable—why should he be persecuted for satisfying the cravings of
nature, and endeavouring to supply the wants of his family? There is not
room now to show fully how groundless the rabbinic commands are; but the
one fact of their cruelty and oppression of the poor is sufficient to
show that they are not from God. Is it possible that any man in his
senses can believe that God would sentence a poor famishing creature to
be flogged without mercy for doing what the letter of the law allows him
to do? or, that the All-wise Being, who foresees and foreknows all
things, would give a system of laws respecting food, which must expose a
large portion of his chosen people to want and starvation? The
worshippers of some cruel heathen deity might possibly be led to believe
such things, but the disciples or Moses and the Prophets know that God
is a God of mercy. Let, then, every one who has got the sacred books
contrast their doctrines with those of the rabbies. But, above all, let
those Israelites, who reject the rabbinic laws concerning the
slaughtering of meat, show that they have not done it from levity nor
indifference, but upon principle. Let them explain to their brethren the
reasons and the motives by which they are actuated, and let them
protest, by word and deed, against such cruelty, oppression, and
intolerance.
No. L.
THE BIRTH OF MESSIAH.
This season of the year naturally draws away our thoughts from the
subject last under consideration, and reminds us of a remarkable
difference between Jews and Christians. The latter are now about to
commemorate the birth of the Messiah.[36] In two days more the voice of
praise and thanksgiving will ascend to the Creator and Preserver of men
from every part of the world. On the frozen shores of Labrador, and the
glowing plains of Hindostan—in the isles of the sea, and on the
continents of the old and new worlds, millions of Christians will lift
up their hands and voices to thank the God of heaven for his unspeakable
gift, and this shall be the burden of their song, “Unto us a child is
born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his
shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty
God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah ix. 6.) But
amongst the followers of the oral law not a sound of sympathy will be
heard. Not a single heart will beat with joy, not a tongue offer up the
tribute of praise. Here is a great and sinking difference, that should
naturally lead both Jew and Christian to inquire, Who is in the right:
Those who believe that Messiah is born, and joy in the remembrance of
his nativity; or, those who refuse to join in the general rejoicing, and
deny that the Redeemer has appeared? The question is whether there is
reason to believe that the Messiah was born eighteen hundred years ago?
and there are several ways in which it can be satisfactorily answered.
An appeal may be made to the predictions contained in the Old Testament,
or to the evidence for the truth of the Christian Scriptures—or, it may
be shown that the Jewish rabbies have plainly confessed that the time
for the birth and appearance of the Messiah is long since past; and this
is the mode which we shall adopt at present. The Jews now deny that
Messiah is come, and consequently believe that Christians are mistaken
as to the time of his appearing. If they had always said so—if they had
always assigned a time for the coming of Messiah different from that in
which Christians think the Messiah was born, their present assertion
would have at least the merit of consistency, and the Jews of the
present day might urge that their present belief has been inherited from
their fathers, and that Christians have adopted a notion unknown to the
nation at large. But, if it should appear that the ancient Jews expected
the coming of Messiah at the very time, when, as Christians say, he did
actually come, then the ancient Jews testify that Christians are in the
right, and that modern Jews are in the wrong, and this is really the
state of the case. In the first place, the Talmud contains a general
declaration that the time is long since past:—
אמר רב כלו כל הקצין ׃
“Rav says, The appointed times are long since past” (Sanhedrin, fol. 97,
col. 2), where it is to be noted that the word קץ is taken from Daniel,
and literally signifies “End,” as it is said:—
עד מתי קץ הפלאות ׃
“How long shall it be to the end of these wonders; and again:—
ואתה לך לקץ ותנוח ותעמוד לגורלך לקץ הימין ׃
“But go thou thy way till the end be, for thou shalt rest, and stand in
thy lot at the end of the days.” (Daniel xii. 6-13.) Rav was therefore
of opinion that the period appointed by Daniel the prophet was past. But
is it possible to believe that the God of truth would suffer the time,
which he had appointed, to pass away without accomplishing what he had
promised? When the time which God had fixed for the deliverance from
Egypt had arrived, not a single day was lost. “It came to pass at the
end קץ of the four hundred and thirty years, even the self-same day,
בעצם היום הזה ׃
it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land
of Egypt.” (Exod. xii. 41.) When the period fixed for the return from
Babylon was come, we read, “In the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia
(that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be
accomplished), the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia,
that he made a proclamation through all his kingdom.” (2 Chron. xxxvi.
22.) And can we think that the Lord God, who so graciously fulfilled his
word on these occasions should break it with reference to the coming of
the Messiah? Rav is either right or wrong. If he be right, then the time
fixed by God is long since past, and as God cannot break his word, the
Messiah must have come long since. But if, to get out of a difficulty,
the Rabbinists say, that Rav was wrong, then we have another proof that
no reliance is to be placed on the doctors of the oral law; indeed we
have a proof that the Rabbinists themselves do not believe it, except
when they like; and that therefore they are not thoroughly in earnest
about their religion.
But, secondly, the ancient Jews not only believed that the time for the
coming of the Messiah was past: they also fixed the exact period:—
תנא דבי אליהו ששה אלפים שנה הוי עלמא שני אלפים תוהו , שני אלפים תורה ,
שני אלפים ימות המשיח ׃
“Tradition of the school of Elijah. The world is to stand six thousand
years. Two thousand, confusion. Two thousand, the law. Two thousand, the
days of Messiah.” (Sanhedrin, fol. 97, col. 1.) Upon which Rashi
remarks—
שלאחר שני אלפים תורה הוה דינו שיבוא משיח ותכלה מלכות הרשעה ויבטל השיעבוד
מישראל ׃
“After the two thousand years of the law, according to the decree.
Messiah ought to have come, and the wicked kingdom should been destined,
and Israel’s state of servitude should have been ended.” Here, then, it
is expressly stated, that Messiah ought to have come at the end of the
fourth thousand years, that is, according to the Jewish reckoning,
fifteen hundred and ninety-seven years ago; or, according to the
Christian reckoning, about eighteen hundred and thirty-six years
ago—that is, at the very time when Jesus of Nazareth did appear. We do
not quote this tradition because we believe that it is really a
tradition of the school of Elijah, but to show what was the opinion of
the more ancient Jews, and this it certainly does, if the general
expectation of the Jews at that time had not been that Messiah was to
appear at the end of the four thousand years, this tradition, whether
genuine or forged, could never have obtained currency nor belief. If it
be a genuine tradition from Elijah, then the Messiah is certainly come.
But if it be fictitious, then it shows the general belief of the Jews at
the time, and in every case proves that the modern Jews do not hold the
doctrines of their forefathers, but have got a new doctrine of their
own. And it further shows, that Christians do not hold any new or
peculiar opinion about the time of Messiah’s coming, but that they
believe, as the ancient Jews believed, that the end of the fourth
thousand years is the right time of Messiah’s coming.
The only answer that the Jews have, is, that the promise of Messiah’s
coming was conditional upon their repentance, but that evasion has been
long since refuted in the Talmud as contrary to Scripture:—
ר׳ אליעזר אומר אם ישראל עושין תשובה נגאלין ואם לאו אינם נגאלין , אמר לו
ר׳ יהושע אם אין עושין תשובה אינם נגאלין אלא הקב׳׳ה מעמיד להן מלך
שגזרותיו קשות כהמן וישראל עושין תשובה ומחזירן למוטב , תניא אידך ר׳
אליעזר אומר אם ישראל עושין תשובה נגאלין , שנאמר שובו בנים שובבים ארפא
משובותיכם , אמר לו ר׳ יהושע והלא כבר נאמר חנם נמכרתם ולא בכסף תגאלו חנם
נמכרתם בעבודה זרה ולא בכסף תגאלו לא בתשובה ומעשים טובים , אמר לו ר׳
אליעזר לר׳ יהושע והלא כבר נאמר שובה אלי ואשובה אליכם , אמר לו ר׳ יהושע
והלא כבר נאמר כי אנכי בעלתי אתכם ולקחתי אתכם אחד מעיר ושנים ממשפחה
והבאתי אתכם ציו , אמר לו ר׳ אליעזר והלא כבר נאמר בשובה ונחת תושעון אמר
לו ר׳ יהושע לר׳ אליעזר והלא כבר נאמר כה אמר ה׳ גואל ישראל וקדושו לבזה
נפש למתעב גוי לעבד מושלים מלכים יראו וקמו שרים וישתחוו , אמר לו ר׳
אלֻיעזר והלא כבר נאמר אם תשוב ישראל נאם ה׳ אלי תשוב אמר לו ר׳ יהושע והלא
כבר נאמר ואשמע את האיש לבוש הבדים אשר ממעל למימי היאר וירם ימינו ושמאלו
אל השמים נפץ יד עם קודש תכלינה כל אלה וגו׳ ושתק ר׳ אליעזר ׃
“R. Eliezer said, If Israel do repentance they will be redeemed, but, if
not, they will not be redeemed. R. Joshua replied, If they do not repent
they will not be redeemed: but God will raise up to them a king whose
decrees shall be as dreadful as Haman, and then Israel will repent, and
thus he will bring them back to what is good. Another tradition. R.
Eliezer said, If Israel do repentance, they shall be redeemed, for it is
said, ‘Turn, O backsliding children; I will heal your backsliding.’ R.
Joshua replied, But was it not said long since, ‘Ye have sold yourselves
for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money,’ (Isaiah lii. 3.)
Where the words ‘sold for nought’ mean, for idolatry; and the words
‘redeemed without money,’ signify, not for money and good works. R.
Eliezer then said, to R. Joshua, But has it not been said long since,
‘Return unto me, and I will return unto you.’ (Mal. iii. 7.) R. Joshua
replied, But has it not been said long since, ‘I am married unto you,
and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring
you to Zion.’ (Jer. iii. 14.) R. Eliezer said, But has it not been
written long since, ‘In returning and rest ye shall be saved.’ (Isaiah
xxx. 15.) R. Joshua replied to R. Eliezer, But has it not been said long
since, ‘Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One,
to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a
servant of rulers, kings shall see and arise, princes also shall
worship.’ (Isaiah xlix. 7.) R. Eliezer said to him again, But has it not
been said long since, ‘If thou wilt return, O Israel, return unto me.’
(Jer. iv. 1.) To which R. Joshua replied, But has it not been written
long since, ‘I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters
of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto
heaven, and swore by Him that liveth for ever, that it shall be for a
time and times and half a time; and when he shall have accomplished to
scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be
finished.’ Whereupon R. Eliezer was silent.” Here then, on the showing
of the Talmud itself, the opinion that the coming of the Messiah is
dependent upon Israel’s repentance, is false; and consequently it is
true, that Messiah was to come unconditionally at the time appointed;
and therefore, as the time is long since past, the Messiah must have
come. But the ancient rabbies do not leave us to reason upon their
words; on the contrary, they tell us expressly that Messiah was born
about the time that the temple was destroyed. In the Jerusalem Talmud,
R. Judan tells us a story of a Jew who actually went and saw him:—
עובדא הוה בחד יהודאי דהוה קאים רדי געת תורתיה קומוי עבר חד ערביי ושמע
קלה , אמר ליה בר יודאי בר יודאי שרי תורך ושרי קנקנך דהא חרב בית מקדשא ,
געת זמן תניינות , אמר ליה בר יודאי בר יודאי קטור תורך וקטור קנקנך דהא
יליד מלכא משיחא , אמר ליה מה שמיה אמר ליה מנחם , אמר ליה ומה שם דאבוי
אמר ליה חזקיהו , אמר ליה םן הן הוא , אמר ליה מן בירת מלכא דבית לחם יהודה
׃
“It happened once to a certain Jew, who was standing ploughing, that his
cow lowed before him. A certain Arab was passing and heard its voice; he
said, O Jew, O Jew! unyoke thine ox, and loose thy plough-share, for the
temple has been laid waste. It lowed a second time, and he said, O Jew,
O Jew! yoke thine oxen, and bind on thy plough-shares, for King Messiah
is born. The Jew said, What is his name? Menachem. He asked further,
What is the name of his father? The other replied, Hezekiah. He asked
again, Whence is he? The other said from the Royal residence of
Bethlehem of Judah.” (Berachoth, fol. 5, col. 1.) The story, then, goes
on to tell us how he went and saw the child, but when he called the
second time, the mother told him that the winds had carried the child
away. We are quite willing to grant that this story is a fable. We do
not quote it because we give it the slightest degree of credit, but
simply to show that the more ancient Jews were so fully persuaded that
the right time of Messiah’s advent was past, that they readily believed
also that he was actually born. The Babylonian Talmud, also, evidently
takes for granted that Messiah is born, as appears from the following
legend:—
ר׳ יהושע בן לוי אשכחיה לאליהו דהוה קיים אפיתחא דמערתא דר׳ שמעון בן יוחאי
אמר ליה אתינא לעלמא דאתי אמר ליה אם ירצה האדון הזה , אמר ר׳ יהושע בן לוי
שנים ראיתי וקול ג׳ שמעתי , אמר ליה אימת אתי משיח אמר ליה זיל שייליה
לדידיה והיכא יתיב אפיתחא דרומי ומאי סימניה יתיב ביני עניים סובלי חלאים
וכולן שרו ואסירי בחד זמנא איהו שרי חד ואסיר חד אמר דילמא מבעינא דלא
איעכב אזל לגביה אמר ליה שלים עליך רבי ומורי אמו ליה שלום עליך בר ליואי
אמר ליה לאימת אתי מר אמר ליה היום ׃